Skip to comments.Funeral director on Trayvon Martin's lack of injuries (Video)
Posted on 04/02/2012 7:00:20 AM PDT by Cubs FanEdited on 04/02/2012 8:00:02 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Florida funeral director who handled the burial of Trayvon Martin says there were no signs of a scuffle on the dead teen, contradicting...
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
“We are an independently family owned and operated business, serving the African-American community in South Florida for over 5 decades.”
Thank God I didn't listen to the video.
See, Wildhighlander75, you are lucky.
Little known fact.
The only thing more segregated than churches in the USA is funeral homes.
I just hope Zimmerman has some photos from the next day or two after the altercation. If so, he should release them now to try to dampen the lynch mob that is building against him.
I have thought that several times.
If you were alive in 1492, you would say that Columbus was wrong and the world was really flat because he didnt reach Asia by sailing west....
If you watch 12 rounds of boxing you will see guys with no marks at all and guys that look beat to death.
Must be a high volume business.
This is the craziest investigation. Bring in Columbo, or at least, Inspector Clouseau or Miss Marples (I think that is her name!).
You know, I think perhaps Z. has hired some pretty wise counsel. He has remained silent, and I think that’s good. He’s given them no ammunition. In the meantime, the cheap sensationalists have had their say and then quietly had what they’ve said come under fire or be disproved. They’ve made themselves look bad.
The MSM is going to hate this piece of truth - they’re cheering for the side that’s lying.
Assuming that 'black' means African-American. Odd coming from people who have never been to Africa, and don't want to go there.
That's another question I've had. Who had and where was the gunshot residue located? Where were the fingerprints located on the gun? And, as always, where the heck were the Skittles and AZ iced tea and what was M shoving down his waistband?
Or maybe it's that it's harder to see bruises on a BLACK PERSON. I mean.... can you even tell when a black person has a 'tan'?
The guy is wearing what amounts to a Christmas bow for a neck tie, hahahaha!
I kept hearing people cite the funeral director as an impartial source of information. In my town there is a black-owned funeral home and they seem to handle most if not all of the funerals of black people...so I figured Trayvon’s parents would probably have had a black funeral home involved. From the photo that looks like it is the case—so he’s not going to say anything that will hurt the story line of Trayvon Martin as the innocent victim.
But Z’s dad and brother are talking which the other side can twist and turn to their benefit.
I don't believe that I have found, in any testimony or written statements, anything about the Skittles and Iced Tea.
IIRC, this 'info' came from family/friends/girlfriend.
More likely it was a statement by one of those NOT on scene, as some kind of common slang. FOR ALL WE KNOW... saying Trayvon went to the local 7-11 for Skittles and Iced Tea is wannabe gangsta rap for getting out of the house and doin some 'bidnezz', or just hanging out in the parking lot causing trouble. Who knows?
I.E. although it may say in police reports that his family 'said' he went for those items, it doesn't mean that those items were found on him. Or were they?
It that was listed as evidence in any official statement, I have missed it.
This is probably not the right crowd to use hussein's "flat-worlder" reference on.
That aside, if you've ever been in a fight, you'd know the flesh your hands tend to come through unscathed. In fact it's entirely possible to break bones in your hand while not even bruising.
Not true. Google "antemortem bruising".
Here is a question I had.
What ‘teenager’ walks 6 miles each way to go to 7-11 to get Skittles and AZ-IT for his 20 year old cousin?
You have not presented us with any facts! Only the statement of the FAMILY’S funeral director. Talk about biased? This hired man will say whatever they want him to say. I’m surprised he didn’t say the only thing under his nails was ‘Skittles’.
I have a big ol’ bruised finger right now that I smashed in a folding table tussle. It thought it won but I put it in the corner! Though it hurt like a bugger boo, there wasn’t a mark on my finger at the time and it took 2-3 days for it to suddenly turn all sorts of nasty colors.
According to CBS, 'live' people like Zimmerman don't bruise either.
Only if the blow lands on a hard surface. Like teeth, might cut a hand. But generally, hitting some guy in the head a few times before grabbing him by the head, would likely NOT produce any bruising.
Now had Martin been punched in the face, particularly around the eyes, I'd expect to see some bruises.
And it was raining...
The funeral director is about as reliable a witness as a Taliban member in South Waziristan after a Predator strike.
Yes, I think black people can tan. About the bruises, I just don’t know.
wrong, it is an undeniable fact at this point zimmerman had broken skin on the back of his head and a bloody nose. the libs defeated themselves on this one, no bruising on TM's body shows the fight was all one sided. Clearly self defense on Zimmerman's part.
Of course they can. We are all a bunch of meat in some kind of semi-transparent container, and the 'sun' doesn't care what color you are to begin with.
What I am discussing is whether it is harder to tell. Both bruising and tans.
Did you ever say to a 'black' person, "Hey, nice tan." ?
Be careful. He might be Muslim so you should say ... a Happy Holidays bow... or Kwanza bow.
Well, that is a good point well put.
Don’t you think the beater would show SOME marks on his hands if he punched another guy and then pummeled him on the ground?
yes it requires a heartbeat, but no it requires less than second, once the blood vessels are ruptured and the heart beats a bruise occurs.
the libs hurt themselves on this one. because of no bruises on TMs body its obvious that zimmerman, whose head was cut did not strike martin. Until the act of self defense ocurred (gunshot) the confrontation was all trayvon Martin victimizing Zimmerman.
All this certain discussion of what happened is stupid and ill informed but the funeral directors comments are not dispositive.
All your points were good ones - up to that point.
Well, those are good points.
My guess is that Martin's thumbprint might be on the trigger. Zimmerman would likely carry on the left side, which would be Martin's right. Martin grabbed for the gun, pulling it out and immediately getting his finger on the trigger (which is not what an experienced gun handler would do). Zimmerman immediately quit defending his face and tried to keep Martin from getting his finger on or pulling the trigger.
Mr. Zimmerman's STATEMENTS were that Martin grabbed for the gun, after beating on him, and Zimmerman struggled to get the gun back, and then ... boom... Martin keeled over dead.
I never heard Zimmerman state that he intentionally aimed at or intentionally pulled the trigger to kill Trayvon.
I don't think that was on his mind. Otherwise he would have had his gun out already.
Well, I heven’t punched anyone lately. I just thought that if somebody punched another person hard enough to break a nose, there would be bruises or cuts to their knuckles. Or maybe it depends on whether or not the person doing the hitting had hardened hands from hard work or physical exercize.
Thats IMPOSSIBLE if there were no marks on Martins body.
Its really kind of incredible that an otherwise intelligent person with a predetermined opinion can look at a set of facts that proove him TOTALLY WRONG and reach the OPPOSITE conclusion.
You must be looking in the mirror. Zimmerman needs NO proof that Martin hit him, Zimmerman's head is gashed and nose was battered. These ARE PROVEN FACTS.
If there are no bruises on TMs body and face then, until the gunshot ocurred, it proves the confrontation was all one sided-- Martin on zimmerman.
THis story is easily used to contradict Zimmerman because it is a biased story and includes only that which they THINK helps the storyline of poor little Trayvon.
They actually use the fact that according to the FD Trayvon wasn’t bruised, to try to prove Trayvon didn’t beat up on Zimmerman, or else Trayvon’s own body would’ve shown bruising from the force of his flesh hitting Zimmerman’s.
Offensive brusing, rather than defensive bruising.
But they leave out the fact that, even if that were true, and we don’t actually know, he was shot and killed at almost the same time he would’ve bruised, thus interfering with a live person’s bruising process.
FReepers are saying the lack of bruising, if true, shows dead men don’t bruise, but it wouldn’t show that Trayvon didn’t attack and beat Zimmerman.
You keep saying it shows Zimmerman was the victim of Trayvon’s blows.
I agree that’s what happened, but the article purports to show just the opposite. Their reasoning is flawed.
Trayvon could well have beaten Zimmerman and showed no bruising because he died right then.
Zimmerman could have even gotten in a lucky pushback or couple of hits on Trayvon and still Trayvon not shown bruising because he was suddenly too dead to show it.
But from what I have read from you, once you posted this you will not acknowledge anything other than what you claimed at first.
Fine...the rest of us can discuss it around you, instead of with you.
[you are lucky. - you are lucky.]
Are you nuts? Pack your ears with cotton for just one day and see how much you enjoy it. Your comments [twice] are off the wall!
And uphill both ways...
If the next action of the aggressor is to take hold of the persons head and bang it on the pavement, the aggressor is also not going to show any signs of injury.
Somebody tell me what I am missing, how the funeral directors statement is in any way relevant.
Exactly right until the last. it is a fact that zimmerman was bruised and battered. The fact that TMs body had no bruises goes to show Zimmerman did not strike him in any way. This proves TM was the instigator and aggressor and that Zimmerman only defended himself.
EXACTLY! it defeats it completely. The libs unwittingly helped zimmerman with this story. When examined, it becomes quickly obvious it backfired right in their crummy little faces.
but once again it all backfires on them. The police and witnesses said zimmerman had a gash on his head etc. More scrutiny of the video shows it was there as well.
The statements of the funeral director saying TM had no briuises on his face or body show that TM was not hit by Zimmerman in any way, therefore the altercation was started by TM and he remained the aggressor until the shot was fired.
That question was asked upthread, and there have been over a dozen reasoned/experienced responses to same.
I too occasionally post w/o reading the thread ;-)
Or have you just not seen the answer you wanted ?
nope a punch form the hard knuckels to a soft nose would not likely produce any bruising on the knuckles
Nor would holding a persons head and smashing it against the ground be likely to produce injuries to the hands.
More germaine is that there were no bruises on TM's body or face, which obviously makes him the attacker and the one in control of the fight right up until zimmerman defended himself.
Black funeral director would be expected to say what he did. He ain’t no Tom.